Did the NCAA just eliminate the 60 scholarship requirement for FBS-FCS counters?

[Pard4Life]

It's not exactly clear if this applies only to teams with 6-6 records or worse, or the entire FBS-FCS slate of games.

In that case, the Patriot League can start scheduling FBS games right now and have them count for FBS teams' bowl eligibility... ditto with the Ivy and Pioneer League.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8228544/ncaa-new-bowl-game-tiebreakers-include-fcs-wins-5-7-teams

[Lehigh Football Nation]

I agree that this widely opens up the FBS field, especially the bottom-feeders like the Sun Belt, to scheduling FCS games. Indeed, you'd have to be a fool not to.

But the rule itself is completely whack. As anyone reading this forum knows, a 6-6 team with wins over Savannah State and St. Francis (PA) is not the same as a 5-7 team with a win over Delaware, and losses to (say) Michigan State and USC.

To me, it's another step towards eliminating any mathematics in the postseason selection process and instead centralizing the power with a few rich men in a room. This is a very bad thing IMO.

[eaglemachine]

Interesting concept from the comments section:


I'd rather see top FCS teams than 5-7 BCS teams. I got my masters at San Jose State. Those guys are terrible and I'd never watch a bowl just to see them get squashed again. They should have relegation in college football like they have in pro soccer. I think that would make things more interesting.
1 fan likes this.
45 Minutes Ago

Calm down. It is just a game.
So. What is your relegation plan?
1 fan likes this.
42 Minutes Ago

welaf
that is a curious point. relegation. you go sub .500 two years in a row or less than 10 wins in two seasons you are now fcs. if you win the fcs championship you are fbs.
31 Minutes Ago

wbrose81408
I'm all for it. Prove it on the field or lose your status. This would keep teams like Indiana, Duke, etc. from raking in tons of cash for producing next to nothing on the field.
1 fan likes this.
2 Minutes Ago

[Pard4Life]

I agree that this widely opens up the FBS field, especially the bottom-feeders like the Sun Belt, to scheduling FCS games. Indeed, you'd have to be a fool not to.

But the rule itself is completely whack. As anyone reading this forum knows, a 6-6 team with wins over Savannah State and St. Francis (PA) is not the same as a 5-7 team with a win over Delaware, and losses to (say) Michigan State and USC.

To me, it's another step towards eliminating any mathematics in the postseason selection process and instead centralizing the power with a few rich men in a room. This is a very bad thing IMO.

What do you think Rutgers does? Texas Southern... Howard... Morgan State... seriously?

ps post numero 4000, yikes!

[Gringer1]

How far down is the FBS willing to reach in order to reward mediocrity? Apparently all the way past the bottom.

[Pard4Life]

How far down is the FBS willing to reach in order to reward mediocrity? Apparently all the way past the bottom.

It's puzzling why these bowl game proliferate... the schools playing in these lower tier bowl games often get stuck with fixed costs of full-priced ticket purchase requirements, travel, and an empty stadium. The TV deal money must be that good...

[NHwildEcat]

You should have to have a winning record...bottom line. Even 6-6 is a joke, and if you are in a title game at 6-6 and lose to go to 6-7, you still suck. If there are not enough teams drop the bowls...or invite the FCS programs and that should pump some money into them.

[dbackjon]

This only would apply if there are not enough FBS teams to fill bowl games.

So a 6-6 team with a win over say, Lehigh, would only be bowl eligible if there were only 69 or fewer FBS teams that are 6-6 or better with at most one counter FCS win.

[dbackjon]

So the answer to the original question is NO.

[Lehigh Football Nation]

This only would apply if there are not enough FBS teams to fill bowl games.

So a 6-6 team with a win over say, Lehigh, would only be bowl eligible if there were only 69 or fewer FBS teams that are 6-6 or better with at most one counter FCS win.

But it is worth mentioning that a team with a losing record did play in a bowl last year, hence the NCAA meeting on it, so it's not just a theoretical question.

And for the non-BCS schools, many of whom float around this 6-6, 5-7 record, they might want to schedule a home game now against an FCS school instead of a body-bag game. After all, everyone needs a trophy xlolx

[Pard4Life]

This only would apply if there are not enough FBS teams to fill bowl games.

So a 6-6 team with a win over say, Lehigh, would only be bowl eligible if there were only 69 or fewer FBS teams that are 6-6 or better with at most one counter FCS win.


That's what it sounded like, but it wasn't 100% clear in the article.

It still creates a scheduling restriction for the Patriot, Ivy, Pioneer, NEC every team, a year or two ahead of time, is not anticipating they will go 6-6, 5-7 with eye towards scheduling one or two weaker FCS teams. They should just completely eliminate the scholarship restriction. It's weird that a 10-2 Syracuse team with a win over Colgate is truly 9-2 for bowl purposes, while a 5-7 Cincinnati team, with a win over Duquesne, is truly 5-7.

[MplsBison]

This only would apply if there are not enough FBS teams to fill bowl games.

So a 6-6 team with a win over say, Lehigh, would only be bowl eligible if there were only 69 or fewer FBS teams that are 6-6 or better with at most one counter FCS win.

I don't read it like that.

I read it that if a bowl can't fill its slots from its contractual tie ins, it may look to fill them from the pool of teams that meets ____ criteria.

The top criteria is having a 6-6 record with 5 I-A wins and 1 I-AA win against any I-AA team. And so on..

[Pard4Life]

But it is worth mentioning that a team with a losing record did play in a bowl last year, hence the NCAA meeting on it, so it's not just a theoretical question.

And for the non-BCS schools, many of whom float around this 6-6, 5-7 record, they might want to schedule a home game now against an FCS school instead of a body-bag game. After all, everyone needs a trophy xlolx


It is increasingly more likely because four teams will par-take in the playoff, so you have four extra bowl slots available because every team moves up a notch. Expand the playoffs to eight teams and you can see how the .500 restriction for bowl games becomes a problem.

[RichH2]

Good catch P4L. Agree does seem to remove at least to some extent the counter limit.

[MplsBison]

It is increasingly more likely because four teams will par-take in the playoff, so you have four extra bowl slots available because every team moves up a notch. Expand the playoffs to eight teams and you can see how the .500 restriction for bowl games becomes a problem.

I don't follow you for the four team playoff. In fact, in 2014 there should be one less game played during the bowl season than in 2013, because the national championship won't be a bowl game of the BCS #1 v BCS #2. So the #1 and #2 ranked teams by the selection committee will both be playing regular bowl games during bowl season.

[WeAreNorthDakota]

It is increasingly more likely because four teams will par-take in the playoff, so you have four extra bowl slots available because every team moves up a notch. Expand the playoffs to eight teams and you can see how the .500 restriction for bowl games becomes a problem.

Aren't the current BCS bowls rotating as the semifinal games? If that's the case, it would only open 2 slots in bowls.

[MplsBison]

FYI, from Wikipedia:


In the previous year's bowl cycle, the NCAA scrapped a bylaw which mandated that a school with a non-losing record of 6–6 in regular season play were not eligible unless conferences could not fill out available bowl positions with teams with a winning record of seven (or more) wins. The new rule was stretched further in this 2011-12 bowl season when a team with a losing record, the 6-7 UCLA Bruins, were invited to a bowl game. The Bruins claimed that they would have finished their season a non-winning 6–6 (rather than a losing 6-7) if they had not been forced to play and lose their conference championship game when the USC Trojans (10–2) were barred from postseason play due to NCAA sanctions.[1]
This interpretation of policy ultimately led to Western Kentucky, with a 7-5 winning record, or Ball State, with a 6-6 non-losing record, going uninvited.

So that's why they're doing this, to make it clear for everyone.


There were 35 bowl games played in the 2011-12 bowl season - INCLUDING the national championship bowl game.

So that means only 34 bowl games will be played in the 2014-15 bowl season. Then the winners of the semi-final games will play in the championship game. So actually, there are only going to be 68 open slots unless another bowl game is added.


EDIT: doh, I forgot they already did make the new bowl - the Big XII and the SEC created the Champions bowl. So it will still be 70 slots.

[Pard4Life]

I don't follow you for the four team playoff. In fact, in 2014 there should be one less game played during the bowl season than in 2013, because the national championship won't be a bowl game of the BCS #1 v BCS #2. So the #1 and #2 ranked teams by the selection committee will both be playing regular bowl games during bowl season.

Right, forgot about the title game being a stand alone... thought it was an actual bowl game.

So, there would be two extra bowl slots available for the lower tier teams compared to the current system. The one semifinal game takes the place of the current national championship game. The second semifinal game then becomes the second "extra" bowl game, like the current title game.

With the bottom tier bowl already seeing .500 teams, you might see more sub-.500 teams on a regular basis, maybe one each year.

[Pard4Life]

FYI, from Wikipedia:



So that's why they're doing this, to make it clear for everyone.


There were 35 bowl games played in the 2011-12 bowl season - INCLUDING the national championship bowl game.

So that means only 34 bowl games will be played in the 2014-15 bowl season. Then the winners of the semi-final games will play in the championship game. So actually, there are only going to be 68 open slots unless another bowl game is added.


EDIT: doh, I forgot they already did make the new bowl - the Big XII and the SEC created the Champions bowl. So it will still be 70 slots.


Did they make one of the current bowls the national semifinal games?

[WeAreNorthDakota]

Did they make one of the current bowls the national semifinal games?

I thought they were doing a rotation of the Rose, Fiesta, Orange, and Sugar as the semifinal games like they did before the BCS Title game was added. I could be wrong though.

EDIT:

Found this in a BCS Press Release:

"The group of presidents also endorsed:

• Rotation of the semifinal games among six bowl sites and rotation of the championship game among neutral sites. The championship game will be managed by the conferences and will not be branded as a bowl game."

I imagine the 6 bowl rotation includes the Rose, Fiesta, Orange, Sugar, Cotton, and the new Big 12/SEC bowl.

[MplsBison]

Did they make one of the current bowls the national semifinal games?

All 35 bowls are going to be played during bowl season. That's 70 teams, no matter how you slice it.

Two of those games will feature matchups between the #1 and #4 ranked teams and the #2 and #3 ranked teams, per the selection committee.

[Pard4Life]

All 35 bowls are going to be played during bowl season. That's 70 teams, no matter how you slice it.

Two of those games will feature matchups between the #1 and #4 ranked teams and the #2 and #3 ranked teams, per the selection committee.

Right, 70 teams as now, because of the new SEC/BigXII Game... and the BCS bowl games will used as the national semifinal games, but will not be called "bowl games"... did not know that. Yesh, what a mess... So if they go to eight playoff teams, I guess they will use the current bowls as well without calling them "bowl games."

[MplsBison]

Right, 70 teams as now, because of the new SEC/BigXII Game... and the BCS bowl games will used as the national semifinal games, but will not be called "bowl games"... did not know that. Yesh, what a mess... So if they go to eight playoff teams, I guess they will use the current bowls as well without calling them "bowl games."

I would guess if it were to be authorized, four of the bowl games would be designated as quarter final games. Then the winners would advance to play 3 more games total, that would be stand alone events from bowl season.

[dbackjon]

I don't read it like that.

I read it that if a bowl can't fill its slots from its contractual tie ins, it may look to fill them from the pool of teams that meets ____ criteria.

The top criteria is having a 6-6 record with 5 I-A wins and 1 I-AA win against any I-AA team. And so on..

No, you are wrong. This is ONLY to be used if there are NO other eligible teams. It is VERY CLEAR in that regard.

[dbackjon]

But it is worth mentioning that a team with a losing record did play in a bowl last year, hence the NCAA meeting on it, so it's not just a theoretical question.

And for the non-BCS schools, many of whom float around this 6-6, 5-7 record, they might want to schedule a home game now against an FCS school instead of a body-bag game. After all, everyone needs a trophy xlolx

Under the new rules, UCLA would be in line behind Western Kentucky and Eastern Michigan - WKU had 6 FBS wins, EMU had 4 FBS wins and 2 FCS wins.

[dbackjon]

Bowl Eligibility:
First, all Eligible teams must be used (i.e. 6 FBS wins, or 5 FBS wins and one COUNTER FCS win) - 7 wins if playing 13 games.

Then, in order:

•First pool: Teams that finish 6-6 but would not normally be bowl eligible because they have a win against a non-counter Football Championship Subdivison team.

So a FBS team with a win over a non-counter


•Second pool: A team that has a 6-6 record but beat two FCS teams.

Eastern Michigan would have been in this pool last year


•Third pool: A team that finished with a 6-7 record, with the seventh loss being in a conference championship game.

UCLA last year
•Fourth pool: A team that played 13 games but finished with a 6-7 record.

Teams that play at Hawaii could fall in here

•Fifth pool: A team in the process of reclassifying to FBS football and has at least a 6-6 record.

UMASS, Tx State, UTSA, USA, as long as they have the 6 FBS wins


•Sixth pool: Any top 5 APR team with a 5-7 record

Duke, Rice, Northwestern, Boise and Northern Illinois

[MplsBison]

Bowl Eligibility:
First, all Eligible teams must be used (i.e. 6 FBS wins, or 5 FBS wins and one COUNTER FCS win) - 7 wins if playing 13 games.

Then, in order:

•First pool: Teams that finish 6-6 but would not normally be bowl eligible because they have a win against a non-counter Football Championship Subdivison team.

So a FBS team with a win over a non-counter


•Second pool: A team that has a 6-6 record but beat two FCS teams.

Eastern Michigan would have been in this pool last year


•Third pool: A team that finished with a 6-7 record, with the seventh loss being in a conference championship game.

UCLA last year
•Fourth pool: A team that played 13 games but finished with a 6-7 record.

Teams that play at Hawaii could fall in here

•Fifth pool: A team in the process of reclassifying to FBS football and has at least a 6-6 record.

UMASS, Tx State, UTSA, USA, as long as they have the 6 FBS wins


•Sixth pool: Any top 5 APR team with a 5-7 record

Duke, Rice, Northwestern, Boise and Northern Illinois

Explain this, then:


Under the new measure, if there are not enough bowl-eligible teams, or if a bowl cannot be filled by its conference affiliations, the open spots would be filled through a six-tier tiebreaking process.

So say the Big Ten and the Sun belt only have 4 win or less teams after filling all other bowl obligations and can not send a team to the Motor City bowl to play a MAC team.

According to the quote, the bowl would skip over the 5/1 counter bowl eligible teams and pick a team via the 6 criteria.

That doesn't make sense, of course. Therefore, I conclude that 5 wins over I-A teams and 1 win over any I-AA team is the new top criteria for being bowl eligible.

[TheValleyRaider]

This is just a way for the bowls to cover themselves on the chance that through mediocre seasons, increased FCS games and postseasons suspensions (hi tOSU and Penn State! See you soon UNC and Miami!) they wind up with less than enough teams eligible through the rules. Now, when they pick amongst the great mass of 5-7 teams, they have some way of attempting to judge rather than just letting the bowls individually select teams. I would be shocked if you see these applied with any kind of regularity

[Pard4Life]

They should make the APR criteria #1... but oh wait I thought the Penn State scandal was supposed to create an earthquake in how college athletics does business?

[dbackjon]

Explain this, then:



So say the Big Ten and the Sun belt only have 4 win or less teams after filling all other bowl obligations and can not send a team to the Motor City bowl to play a MAC team.

According to the quote, the bowl would skip over the 5/1 counter bowl eligible teams and pick a team via the 6 criteria.

That doesn't make sense, of course. Therefore, I conclude that 5 wins over I-A teams and 1 win over any I-AA team is the new top criteria for being bowl eligible.

No they can't...and Jerry Palm agrees with me as well...

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/jerry-palm/19720653/gotta-fill-the-bowls

The NCAA has finally come up with a (possibly inadequate) plan in the event that there aren't 70 eliglble teams to fill the 35 bowls. That is a distinct possibility this year because as of now, four teams are inelgible for the postseason, each of which is likely to post a record that would have otherwise made them eligible. North Carolina, Ohio State, Penn State and UCF will all be spending the holidays at home this year, although UCF is appealing. Additionally, sanctions against Miami and/or Oregon could come down during the season.

In the event less than 70 teams are bowl-eligible, additional teams, if available, can be selected from the following groups, in order.

[MplsBison]

The CBS sports article changed the wording from the ESPN article.

ESPN:


Now, first consideration will go to 6-6 teams with a win against any FCS teams, regardless of scholarships, then 6-6 teams with two wins against FCS schools.

CBS sports:


1. Teams that finished 6-6, but had a win over an unqualified I-AA school.


The ESPN wording supports me, while I agree the CBS sports article supports your argument. But IMO the CBS sports article is entirely written from the presumptive viewpoint of your argument - then simplified the language to make it easier to understand from that viewpoint.


I want to see the exact NCAA rule book wording before I speculate further.

[dbackjon]

The CBS sports article changed the wording from the ESPN article.

ESPN:



CBS sports:




The ESPN wording supports me, while I agree the CBS sports article supports your argument. But IMO the CBS sports article is entirely written from the presumptive viewpoint of your argument - then simplified the language to make it easier to understand from that viewpoint.


I want to see the exact NCAA rule book wording before I speculate further.

We will have to see - but this rule is in place ONLY if there are not 70 bowl eligible teams, so ESPN's position makes NO sense.